Uprooted Palestinian

Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.

Thursday, 22 February 2018

The deterrence equation set by the Secretary General of Hezbollah Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and was put at the hands of the Lebanese officials “we will ensure the stopping of the Israeli oil platforms in the sea within hours if you request that” was the partnership needed from the resistance in the ongoing negotiations with the Americans, Al Sayyed has praised the unity of the Lebanese position and its sticking to the rights, but he did not refrain from indicating to the wrong ideas in the essence of the negotiation administration, in terms of leaving America uses the Israeli threat card and confronting it with the card of rights which its mission ends upon confronting the false allegations of the Israeli possession of the oil areas, while the power was to show the same card entitled, if you deter Israel, we will deter our resistance and thus the escalation ends.

There is a different implicit debate in the context of the unity of the position indicated by Al Sayyed, entitled “how the unity is preserved if the Americans put a Lebanese component which the Lebanese are boasting of its sacrifices, capabilities, and the honesty of its patriotisms under negotiation as a burden on Lebanon and the Lebanese. What a message received by the followers of the resistance if the official statement was not based only on ensuring the right, but to ask for the American mediation to prevent the aggression, therefore, this position will be just understood by the American as weakness and fear from the threat, and if the commitment to the international resolution and the financial laws was shown as if Lebanon does not cover Hezbollah, so the American went too far in saying that the Lebanese must be concerned about Hezbollah. Some of them felt happy upon hearing that America’s problem was with Hezbollah not with Lebanon, and considered these words as a Lebanese achievement, while it is supposed from those who say that the unity among the Lebanese is the source of their strength to refuse every attempt to criminalize any Lebanese national component that represents a source of strength and a crucial element in this unity.

In the scene of dropping the Israeli F16 above Occupied Palestine after targeting it in the Lebanese airspace, Al Sayyed summarized the position by giving a word of fairness to Syria, its President, and army, then he showed the new decisive deterrent element which the scene added to the deterrence equations which are represented by the resistance, but he asked about the justification of leaving the Lebanese airspace uncontrolled in a way that encourages the Israel to break through. The Syrian achievement says that the protection of the Lebanese airspace is possible and that the Russian weapon is capable, so the matter is in the will rather in anything else. The Russians are ready, so what prevents Lebanese as long as the protection of the Lebanese airspace from Syria is possible so how from Lebanon?

In the electoral scene and after the praise of the electoral law, Al Sayyed asked who said that we ask you for an alliance, in response to the repeated rejection of the head of Al Mustaqbal Movement to ally with Hezbollah, he reached to the essence of the change which he wants from the Lebanese to understand with the new law, it is the transition of the parliamentary elections from a cold civil disputing war to one goal in which all the parties and the sects participate, every party is represented according to what it represents fairly, where no one has the power to alienate or to abolish anyone whether in his sect or other sects, and after the elections the political and governmental elections will be considered, so this is the meaning of the distinction between the strong relationship with the Free Patriotic Party and the hypothesis of the non-alliance in many constituencies.

Palestinian President Abbas bows before UN

DAMASCUS, SYRIA (11:00 P.M)- Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, just announced that the Palestinian Authority (PA) works for the occupation forces in the West Bank.

At a speech delivered before the ‘United Nations Security Council’ today, Mahmoud Abbas Announced that his administration works with the occupation of the West Bank and that he was open to various things including land swaps with Israel.

Abbas Appealed to the United Nations to help his administration achieve their aims, in a way that would please both them and the international community.

Abbas also failed to properly address or voice the suffering in the Gaza Strip, this comes as no surprise to his critics as the Palestinian Authority have been accused of doing nothing to help the humanitarian crisis, since the ‘Unity Deal’ signed between Fatah and Hamas last September.

The Gaza Strip was also touched on today in the United Nations, confirming that it will see complete economic collapse soon

Since the Russian military positioning in the face of the war on Syria at the end of September 2015, it was clear for Moscow and its allies in the axis of resistance that there are differences in the four aspects that rule the deep alliance, which based on the protection of Syria from the threat of terrorism, division, and chaos. These differences are related to the interests and the deep visions of the two teams in the region to the extent that they considered the winning in Syria an existential issue for the two teams, and that the cohesion of this alliance is a compulsory way for this winning. Therefore this consensus led to the decision of the Russian positioning which was followed by shifts through which the two teams succeeded in managing these differences smoothly and quietly.

The four differences are first, the Kurdish position and Moscow’s trust in its ability to lure the Kurdish leaderships to the project of the political solution sponsored by Moscow. Second, the Turkish position and the ability to lure it to a partnership in the political solution that grants it a special role instead of the losing bet on supporting the axis of war. Third, the Israeli position and the Russian bet on neutralizing Israel from the alliance of sabotaging the projects of the political solution in Syria sponsored by Russia, under the title that Russia through its presence in Syria is not an additional party in the balances of the axis of resistance in its open battle with Israel, since this conflict can be managed away from affecting the project of combating the terrorism in Syria, the prevention of its division, and recovering it supported by Russian guarantees to Israel and to the axis of resistance. The forth difference is related to the American position and the Russian bet on attracting Washington to a political settlement in Syria that forms a way for ending the dispute and paves the way for a negotiating path that led previously to the understanding on the Iranian nuclear program with Iran, and can lead to solution in the disputing files between Washington and Tehran.

Within two years the axis of the resistance waged its confrontations with these four titles in a way that did not embarrass Russia and did not affect the alliance with it. The battle of Aleppo occurred after a war of attrition that lasted for months fought by Turkey under the title of armistice, while Turkey was conspiring until Moscow was convinced to wage that battle fiercely and decisively. Furthermore, the axis of the resistance endured the American and Israeli provocations and the development of the Kurdish separation situation, but it was restraint supported by three constants; first, the cost of the disparity with Moscow is higher than the gains of this disparity in these titles, second, the achievements of these titles are doubtful without Russia. Third, the facts will prove whether Moscow’s bet was right or no, in this case, Moscow will reposition with new visions and policies.

The understanding between the axis of resistance and Russia has been drawn on a basis of continuing the war of liberation of the Syrian geography without neglecting the Russian initiatives to attract the Kurds and the Turks and to neutralize the Americans and the Israelis, but without the allowance of any provocation to lead to a side confrontation that stops the military path of determination on one hand, and confuses Russia on the other hand. The recent facts led to transformations in the positions and maybe because Russia discovered the correctness of the resistance axis’s reading, but most importantly it became clear for Russia that America has resolved its choice; that its confrontation is with Russia, in other words; to prevent the growing of its international and regional presence as the American strategy stated publicly and as the American statements and the practices said in order to raise the importance of staying in Syria rather than the political solution in it. In contrast, the facts showed that the Kurdish dependence on Washington is bigger than to be attracted by the Russian temptations for the political solution, and the constitutional formulas that meet the aspirations of the Kurdish leaderships, furthermore, Turkey’s ambitions to grasp a part of the Syrian geography exceeds its desire to ensure the Turkish national security from the threat of the Kurdish entity. Israel does not wage in Syria its battle only, but the battle of America to disrupt the political solution led by Russia, it turned into a main party in the war of weakening the status of Russia.

These are the conclusions reached by Russia; it drew the path of the new stage entitled deepening the alliance with the axis of resistance and grants it strategic aspects that surpass the coordination and the cooperation under the ceiling of the recovery of Syria and the ensuring of its unity and sovereignty. The joint Russian administration with the resistance axis starts from a common view of the axes and the rules of engagement. On the basis of this new equation of the alliance, the time which the Syrian President has long waited for to build networks of air defense has come and was the decision of dropping the Israeli warplane, knowing that further similar steps will take place soon. The Israelis and the Americans have to take into consideration that the path of resolving will continue in the field more forcefully, and the response to the provocations will be greater too, even if the cost is an open confrontation waged by the axis of resistance and supported indirectly by Russia. The Turks and the Kurds must take into consideration that there will be no consolation prizes. The only available title to avoid the worst is to spread the authority of the Syrian country in the areas of the Turkish and the Kurdish control.

Events in Syria have recently clearly taken a turn for the worse and there is an increasing amount of evidence that the Russian task force in Syria is being targeted by a systematic campaign of “harassing attacks”.

First, there was the (relatively successful) drone and mortar attack on the Russian Aerospace base in Khmeimin. Then there was the shooting down of a Russian SU-25 over the city of Maasran in the Idlib province. Now we hear of Russian casualties in the US raid on a Syrian column (along with widely exaggerated claims of “hundreds” of killed Russians). In the first case, Russian officials did openly voice their strong suspicion that the attack was if not planned and executed by the USA, then at least coordinated with the US forces in the vicinity. In the case of the downing of the SU-25, no overt accusations have been made, but many experts have stated that the altitude at which the SU-25 was hit strongly suggests a rather modern MANPAD of a type not typically seen in Syria (the not so subtle hint being here that these were US Stingers sent to the Kurds by the USA). As for the latest attack on the Syrian column, what is under discussion is not who did it but rather what kind of Russian personnel was involved, Russian military or private contractors (the latter is a much more likely explanation since the Syrian column had no air-cover whatsoever). Taken separately, none of these incidents mean very much but taken together they might be indicative of a new US strategy in Syria: to punish the Russians as much as possible short of an overt US attack on Russian forces. To me this hypothesis seems plausible for the following reasons:

First, the USA and Israel are still reeling in humiliation and impotent rage over their defeat in Syria: Assad is still in power, Daesh is more or less defeated, the Russians were successful not only their military operations against Daesh but also in their campaign to bring as many “good terrorists” to the negotiating table as possible. With the completion of a successful conference on Syria in Russia and the general agreement of all parties to begin working on a new constitution, there was a real danger of peace breaking out, something the AngloZionist are absolutely determined to oppose (check out this apparently hacked document which, if genuine, clearly states the US policy not to allow the Russian to get anything done).

Second, both Trump and Netanyahu have promised to bring in lots of “victories” to prove how manly and strong they are (as compared to the sissies which preceded them). Starting an overt war against Russian would definitely be a “proof of manhood”, but a much too dangerous one. Killing Russians “on the margins”, so to speak, either with plausible deniability or, alternatively, killing Russians private contractors is much safer and thus far more tempting option.

Third, there are presidential elections coming up in Russia and the US Americans are still desperately holding on to their sophomoric notion that if they create trouble for Putin (sanctions or body bags from Syria) they can somehow negatively impact his popularity in Russia (in reality they achieve the opposite effect, but they are too dull and ignorant to realize that).

Last but not least, since the AngloZionist have long lost the ability to actually getting anything done, their logical fall-back position is not let anybody else succeed either. This is the main purpose of the entire US deployment in northern Syria: to create trouble for Turkey, Iran, Syria and, of course, Russia.

The bottom line is this: since the US Americans have declared that they will (illegally) stay in Syria until the situation “stabilizes” they now must do everything their power to destabilize Syria. Yes, there is a kind of a perverse logic to all that…

For Russia, all this bad news could be summed up in the following manner: while Russia did defeat Daesh in Syria she is still far from having defeated the AngloZionists in the Middle-East. The good news is, however, that Russia does have options to deal with this situation.

Step one: encouraging the Turks

There is a counter-intuitive but in many ways an ideal solution for Russia to counter the US invasion of Syria: involve the Turks. How? Not by attacking the US forces directly, but by attacking the Kurdish militias the US Americans are currently “hiding” behind (at least politically). Think of it, while the US (or Israel) will have no second thoughts whatsoever before striking Syrian or Iranian forces, actually striking Turkish forces would carry an immense political risk: following the US-backed coup attempt against Erdogan and, just to add insult to injury, the US backing for the creation of a “mini-Kurdistsan” both in Iraq and in Syria, US-Turkish relations are at an all-time low and it would not take much to push the Turks over the edge with potentially cataclysmic consequences for the US, EU, NATO, CENTCOM, Israel and all the AngloZionist interests in the region. Truly, there is no overstating the strategic importance of Turkey for Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle-East, and the US Americans know that. From this flows a very real if little understood consequence: the Turkish armed forces in Syria basically enjoy what I would call a “political immunity” from any US attacks, that is to say that (almost) no matter what the Turks do, the US would (almost) never consider actually openly using force against them simply because the consequence of, say, a USAF strike on a Turkish army column would be too serious to contemplate.

In fact, I believe that the US-Turkish relationship is so bad and so one-sided that I see a Turkish attack on a Kurdish (or “good terrorist”) column/position with embedded US Special Forces far more likely than a US attack on a Turkish army column. This might sound counter-intuitive, but let’s say the Turks did attack a Kurdish (or “good terrorist”) column/position with US personnel and that US servicemen would die as the result. What would/could the US do? Retaliate in kind? No way! Not only is the notion of the US attacking a fellow NATO country member is quite unthinkable, it would most likely be followed by a Turkish demand that the US/NATO completely withdraw from Turkey’s territory and airspace. In theory, the US could ask the Israelis to do their dirty job for them, but the Israelis are not stupid (even if they are crazy) and they won’t have much interest in starting a shooting war with Turkey over what is a US-created problem in a “mini-Kurdistan”, lest any hallowed “Jewish blood” be shed for some basically worthless goyim.

No, if the Turks actually killed US servicemen there would be protests and a flurry of “consultations” and other symbolic actions, but beyond that, the US would take the losses and do nothing about it. As for Erdogan, his popularity at home would only soar even higher. What all this means in practical terms is that if there is one actor which can seriously disrupt the US operations in northern Syria, or even force the US to withdraw, it is Turkey. That kind of capability also gives Turkey a lot of bargaining power with Russia and Iran which I am sure Erdogan will carefully use to his own benefit. So far Erdogan has only threatened to deliver an “Ottoman slap” to the USA and Secretary of State Tillerson is traveling to Ankara to try to avert a disaster, but the Turkish instance that the USA chose either the Turkish or the Kurdish side in the conflict very severely limits the chances of any real breakthrough (the Israel lobby being 100% behind the Kurds). One should never say never, but I submit that it would take something of a miracle at this point to really salvage the US-Turkish relationship. Russia can try to capitalize on this dynamic.

The main weakness of this entire concept is, of course, that the USA is still powerful enough, including inside Turkey, and it would be very dangerous for Erdogan to try to openly confront and defy Uncle Sam. So far, Erdogan has been acting boldly and in overt defiance of the USA, but he also understands the risks of going too far and for him to even consider taking such risks there have to be prospects of major benefits from him. Here the Russians have two basic options: either to promise the Turks something very inciting or to somehow further deteriorate the current relationship between the US and Turkey. The good news here is that Russian efforts to drive a wedge between the US and Turkey are be greatly assisted by the US support for Israel, Kurds, and Gulenists.

The other obvious risk is that any anti-Kurdish operation can turn into yet another partition of Syria, this time by the Turks. However, the reality is that the Turks can’t really stay for too long in Syria, especially not if Russia and Iran oppose this. There is also the issue of international law which is much easier for the USA to ignore than for the Turks.

For all these reasons using the Turks to put pressure on the USA has its limitations. Still, if the Turks continue to insist that the USA stop supporting the Kurds, or if they continue putting military pressure on the Kurdish militias, then the entire US concept of a US-backed “mini-Kurdistan” collapses and, with it, the entire US partition plan for Syria.

So far, the Iraqis have quickly dealt with the US-sponsored “mini-Kurdistan” in Iraq and the Turks are now taking the necessary steps to deal with the US-sponsored “mini-Kurdistan” in Syria at which point *their* problem will be solved. The Turks are not interested in helping Assad or, for that matter, Putin and they don’t care what happens to Syria as long as *their* Kurdish problem is under control. This means that the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians should not place too much hope on the Turks turning against the USA unless, of course, the correct circumstances are created. Only the future will tell whether the Russians and the Iranians will be able to help to create such circumstances.

Right now nobody knows what kind of air-defense systems the Russians have been delivering to the Syrians over the past couple of years, but that is clearly the way to go for the Russians: delivering as many modern and mobile air defense systems to the Syrians. While this would be expensive, the best solution here would be to deliver as many Pantsir-S1 mobile Gun/SAM systems and 9K333 Verba MANPADs as possible to the Syrians and the Iranians. The combination of these two systems would immensely complicate any kind of air operations for the US Americans and Israelis, especially since there would be no practical way of reliably predicting the location from which they could operate. And since both the USA and Israel are operating in the Syrian skies in total violation of international law while the Syrian armed forces would be protecting their own sovereign airspace, such a delivery of air-defense systems by Russia to Syria would be impeccably legal. Best of all, it would be absolutely impossible for the AngloZionist to know who actually shot at them since these weapon systems are mobile and easy to conceal. Just like in Korea, Vietnam or Lebanon, Russian crews could even be sent to operate the Syrian air defense systems and there would be no way for anybody to prove that “the Russians did it” when US and Israeli aircraft would start falling out of the skies. The Russians would enjoy what the CIA calls “plausible deniability”. The US Americans and Israelis would, of course, turn against the weaker party, the Syrians, but that other than feeling good that would not really make a difference on the ground as the Syrians skies would not become safer for US or Israelis air forces.

The other option for the Russians would be to offer upgrades (software and missile) to the existing Syrian air defense systems, especially their road-mobile 2K12 Kub and 9K37 Buk systems. Such upgrades, especially if combined with enough deployed Pantsirs and Verbas would be a nightmare for both the US Americans and the Israelis. The Turks would not care much since they are already basically flying with the full approval of the Russians anyway, and neither would the Iranians who, as far as I know, have no air operations in Syria.

One objection to this plan would be that two can play this game and that there is nothing preventing the USA from sending even more advanced MANPADs to their “good terrorist” allies, but that argument entirely misses the point: if both sides do the same thing, the side which is most dependent on air operations (the USA) stands to lose much more than the side which has the advantage on the ground (the Russians). Furthermore, by sending MANPADs to Syria, the USA is alienating a putative ally, Turkey, whereas if Russia sends MANPADs and other SAMs to Syria the only one who will be complaining will be the Israelis. When that happens, the Russians will have a simple and truthful reply: we did not start this game, your US allies did, you can go and thank them for this mess.

The main problem in Syria is the fact that the US and the Israelis are currently operating in the Syrian skies with total impunity. If this changes, this will be a slow and gradual process. First, there would be a few isolated losses (like the Israeli F-16 recently), then we would see that the location of US and/or Israeli airstrikes would gradually shit from urban centers and central command posts to smaller, more isolated targets (such as vehicle columns). This would indicate an awareness that the most lucrative targets are already too well defended. Eventually, the number of air sorties would be gradually replaced by cruise and ballistic missiles strikes. Underlying it all would be a shift from offensive air operations to force protection which, in turn, would give the Syrians, Iranians, and Hezbollah a much easier environment to operate in. But the necessary first step for any of that to happen would be to dramatically increase the capability of Syrian air defenses.

Hezbollah has, for decades, very successfully operated under a total Israelis air supremacy and their experience of this kind of operations would be invaluable to the Syrians until they sufficiently built up their air defense capabilities.

Conclusion: is counter-escalation really the only option?

Frankly, I am starting to believe that the Empire has decided to attempt upon a partial “reconquista” of Syria, even Macron is making some noises about striking the Syrians to “punish” them for their use of (non-existing) chemical weapons. At the very least, the USA wants to make the Russians pay as high a price as possible for their role in Syria. Further US goals in Syria include:

The imposition of a de-facto partition of Syria by taking under control the Syrian territory east of the Euphrates river (we could call that “plan C version 3.0”)

The theft of the gas fields located in northeastern Syria

The creation of a US-controlled staging area from which Kurdish, good terrorist and bad terrorist operations can be planned and executed

The sabotaging of any Russian-backed peace negotiations

The support for Israeli operations against Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Syria

Engaging in regular attacks against Syrian forces attempting to liberate their country from foreign invaders

Presenting the invasion and occupation of Syria as one of the “victories” promised by Trump to the MIC and the Israel lobby

So far the Russian response to this developing strategy has been a rather a passive one and the current escalation strongly suggests that a new approach might be needed. The shooting down of the Israeli F-16 is a good first step, but much more needs to be done to dramatically increase the costs the Empire will have to pay for is policies towards Syria. The increase in the number of Russian commentators and analysts demanding a stronger reaction to the current provocations might be a sign that something is in the making.

Wednesday, 21 February 2018

The Lebanese Army is ready to confront any Israeli aggression at all costs, commander General Joseph Aoun said.

“I reaffirm again our categorical rejection of the Israeli enemy infringing on Lebanon’s sovereignty and its sacred right to exploit all its economic resources,” General Joseph Aoun said during the Eighth Regional Conference in Beirut late Monday.

“The army will not spare any method available to confront any Israeli aggression, whatever that costs,” the Lebanese commander said, according to the Lebanese Army’s account on Twitter.

Earlier this month, Lebanon signed its first contracts to explore two offshore zones for oil and gas.

However, Lebanon face many challenges in this context, as the Zionist entity claims the “right” to Block 9, a triangle off the Lebanese coast that is around 860 square kilometers.

Hezbollah’s Member of Parliament, Mohammad Raad stressed Lebanon’s full right to benefit from its natural resources.

During a ceremony marking the martyrdom anniversary of Hezbollah’s Leaders, Raad said “Great Israel” has gone and it is over, noting that the Zionist entity nowadays is seeking to defend itself rather than attacking others, through building the so-called Border Wall.

“The Zionist regime fears war! Yesterday an Israeli F-16 fighter jet was downed by Syria, with Zionist officials appealing for international intervention in a bid to prevent further escalation in the situation,” MP Raad, who is the Head of Loyalty to Resistance Parliamentary bloc, said during the ceremony in the southern town of Jibshit.

Raad meanwhile, stressed the Lebanese resistance full readiness to confront any Israeli aggression.

In the same context the Lebanese MP stressed that Lebanon has the full right to utilize from its natural resources of oil and gas.

“This issues represents a challenge to Lebanon, its government and people. We have to prove that we are capable to defend our oil, gas and other resources.”

February 16 is the martyrdom anniversary of Hezbollah’s Leaders, Sheikh Ragheb Harb, Sayyed Abbas Al-Mousawi and Hajj Imad Mughniyeh, all were assassinated by the Zionist enemy throughout different years of confrontation, but in the same week.

Sheikh Ragheb Harb was assassinated by an Israeli agent on February 16, 1984.

Late Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Abbas al-Mousawi was martyred, along with his wife and son, when an Israeli airstrike attacked his convoy as he was attending the commemoration anniversary of Sheikh Harb on February 16, 1992.

Later on February 12, 2008, Hezbollah’s top military commander Hajj Imad Moghniyeh was martyred in a car bomb attack carried out by Israeli Mossad agents.

The goal was not to break the siege to get their needs from the other side

What was the goal?

Upon the advise of Hezbollah’s Great Leader Martyr Imad Mughniyeh, under the cover of Tens of thousands Gazans mobilized by Hamas to crossed the borders, Hamas moved thousands of Syrian and Iranian missiles hidden behind the wall.

“It is your golden opportunity” Mughniyeh told Hamas.

Listen to Anis 23:30 in the following Video

السيد حسن نصرالله (يسأل خالد مشعل) من ارسل الصواريخ الى غزة؟

نصر الله يوجه رسالة لحماس حول سوريا

2:40

2:00

A new Surprise, Another slap on Pharoah’s Face: Gazan’s Cut through the Wall of Shame

“Every problem has a solution. The Egyptian steel barrier was a problem but we found a solution,” says Mohammed, a grimy-faced Gazan tunnel digger who didn’t want to give his real name.

Mohammed, covered in dust and dirt, is in the process of digging a 750m (2,460ft) smuggling tunnel from Gaza into Egypt. He says he’s been digging it for 18 months.

As he hauls up a plastic container of sand with an electric winch from the metre-wide tunnel shaft, he says the new underground Egyptian barrier aimed at stopping smuggling is a “joke.”

“We just cut through it using high-powered oxygen fuelled blow torches,” he says.

The Egyptian government says it began constructing the barrier along the Gaza-Egypt border last year. When finished it is meant to be 11km-long (seven miles), stretching down 18m (59ft) underground.
According to Egypt it is made of bomb-proof, super-strength steel and is costing millions of dollars to build.

‘Embarrassing’

Mohammed smiles when he hears this.

“We pay around a $1,000 (£665) for a man with an oxygen-fuelled cutter to come and break through it. It takes up to three weeks to cut through but we get there in the end,” he says.

If they [Egypt] opened the border, we wouldn’t need to dig tunnels. But until they do, we’ll keep digging, whatever they do to try and stop us

Mohammed, tunnel digger

Mohammed says the steel barrier is 5-10cm (2-4in) thick.

The BBC spoke to one man in Gaza employed to cut through the barrier. He said he could cut a metre-square hole through it in less than a day.

This news will be embarrassing for Egypt’s government.

Encouraged by the United States which gives millions of dollars in military aid to Egypt every year, it says it is trying to crack down on smuggling into Gaza.

The BBC asked the Egyptian government to comment on the fact that Gazans were already cutting through the barrier. The government has not yet responded.

Sheep and shampoo

The Palestinian territory has been under a tightened Israeli and Egyptian economic blockade since 2007 when the Hamas Islamist movement took over the territory.

The blockade was enforced to put pressure on Hamas and to stop weapons being smuggled in.

Little attempt is made to keep the tunnels secret

Egypt’s secular government is opposed to Hamas, which has historical ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition movement in Egypt which is illegal but largely tolerated.

Many Gazans are angry with the Egyptian government, which – they say – is increasing their suffering.
The blockade has meant that Gaza is to a great extent dependent on the smuggling tunnels from Egypt. Millions of dollars worth of goods are smuggled in every month.

Everything from fridges to fans, sheep to shampoo comes through the tunnels. The BBC even obtained video footage this year of whole brand-new cars being dragged through tunnels from Egypt.
The UN estimates that as much as 80% of imports into Gaza come through the tunnels.Big business

The tunnels are not at all hard to find. In the southern Gazan town of Rafah, right on the border, there are lines of them covered by white tents.

<>Little attempt is made to keep them secret. They are surrounded by huge mounds of sandy earth which have been dug out of the ground.

The air is thick with diesel fuel from the trucks that transport the goods across the Gaza strip.
The openness of the smuggling operation suggests that if Israel and Egypt really wanted to stop the tunnels they could easily do so.

Israel has at times bombed some of the tunnels, but has stopped short of totally shutting them down.
Aid agencies in Gaza say that if Israel or Egypt really forced the smuggling to stop, it would lead to an even more desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza which would be damaging to Israel’s and Egypt’s international reputations.

Diplomats in the region also believe that so much money is being made in Egypt from the trade through the tunnels that much of the smuggling is likely to continue.

But the head of operations in Gaza for the UN relief agency Unrwa, John Ging, says that ordinary people in Gaza are losing out.

“Everything is expensive because people are hostage to the dynamics of a black market.”

Mr Ging stressed that it was the Israeli-Egyptian blockade that was allowing that black market to thrive.
The UN does not use illegal goods and building materials smuggled in through from Egypt.

If the blockade remains in place it seems the tunnel industry will continue to thrive, underground steel barrier or not.

“If they opened the border, we wouldn’t need to dig tunnels,” says Mohammed peering into the shaft of his tunnel in Rafah. “But until they do, we’ll keep digging, whatever they do to try and stop us.”
“Every problem has a solution,” he smiles.